AA-5 Loads in 38 Special are HOT!

Evidently this new lot of AA-5 is a bit faster than the older lot the OP was using and then when combined with the magnum primers was just a little too much of a good thing. Time to break out the bullet puller.



Lesson here is when switching from regular to magnum primers and also switching from an older lot to a new can of powder, load a few test rounds . That way if something is amiss you wont have to spend so much time pulling loaded rounds apart.
Changes in components do make a difference...you have just seen how two seemingly small changes did make a difference. Not a devastating
difference but enough of a difference to cause concern.
You can't be too careful in reloading. I'm glad nothing was injured and hope the learners will be aware of such things.
Load Safe,
Gary
 
Last edited:
I went back to the OP and read it again.

It's hard to believe that 5.2 grains was painful to shoot when I know I loaded more, 5.5 grains, and thought the load was rather mild in a 6" barrel model 14.

Perhaps the OP should pull a couple and check the charge weight again.

Speer lists 5.8-6.2 grains with a 158 grain LSWC for the .38 Special.

With a magnum primer his load should have yielded not more than 900fps.

When something seems wrong with a load, it is best to go back to square one and check the powder charge.

BLM
 
So much for asking a simple question.......

I've been loading for 30+ years, my current total is about 735,000 rounds, and I have never had an aberration like this one, aside from some scary-hot Blue Dot 357 loads back in the 80's. I thought I'd ask the opinions of the learned folks here, but it seems some would rather give a lecture than actually add to the discussion.

I won't make that mistake again, trust me. Sheesh.

Sorry POP. All forums seem to have a distinct personality, some, like this one, tend to be lecture forums where you can ask a simple question about any single aspect of reloading and you are told everything from how brass is manufacturer to the "only correct way to reload", with a descent answer mixed in with the "truths".

I prefer to answer the OP in a basic way; for an entry level reloader, mainly because if it ain't simple I don't answer and leave the "lectures" to the forum experts/elder statesmen.

I mean no offence, it's just the way it is. One way I determine if a thread has much merit or inundated with "exacting" truths is by the number of replied to each thread; if there is more than 10, I know the thread had gone the way of the wild goose...

So, I have criticized the forum "Masters" and I do expect an extensive flame session :D
 
It doesn't matter how much is said....

Sorry POP. All forums seem to have a distinct personality, some, like this one, tend to be lecture forums where you can ask a simple question about any single aspect of reloading and you are told everything from how brass is manufacturer to the "only correct way to reload", with a descent answer mixed in with the "truths".

I prefer to answer the OP in a basic way; for an entry level reloader, mainly because if it ain't simple I don't answer and leave the "lectures" to the forum experts/elder statesmen.

I mean no offence, it's just the way it is. One way I determine if a thread has much merit or inundated with "exacting" truths is by the number of replied to each thread; if there is more than 10, I know the thread had gone the way of the wild goose...

So, I have criticized the forum "Masters" and I do expect an extensive flame session :D

Sometimes when the obvious causes are eliminated some brainstorming on the not so obvious causes is in order. You can read a thread as far as you want to, but don't knock people for bringing up ideas. To me it's all good information that may apply to a similar problem with a different cause. I learn one hell of a lot on this forum just by reading, much of which has directly helped me.
 
I agree something is out of wack. Today I took the new to me model 37 3in to the range and tried some hbwc 3.3 gr. tite group loads and my normal 158swc over 5.5 gr of AA-5. The target loads were easy to tolerate with the alum. frame weapon and so were the 158 AA-5 loads I have no idea what happened to you but at least you didn't hurt anything.
 
Blue Dot.....

So much for asking a simple question.......

I've been loading for 30+ years, my current total is about 735,000 rounds, and I have never had an aberration like this one,

Blue Dot has a mind of it's own. The use of regular and magnum primers has been debated and it's temperature sensitive.
 
I'll add this. I have used AA5 in .38 Special loadings with 158 grain FMJ bullets for quite some time. My load is 6.2 grains. I use two revolvers. One with a 5" barrel chronos at about 770 Ft/sec, one with a 4" barrel, about 730 ft/sec. Velocities could be a bit higher with a lead bullet, but it is absolutely certain that 6.2 grains of AA5 is far removed from being a "Hot" load in a .38 Special using a 158 grain bullet. As far as canister powders varying by 10% from lot to lot, that is total hogwash, unless you are buying powder from some third-world country. I am very familiar with the propellant manufacturing industry (long ago I worked for Hercules), and I know that every lot shipped for sale on the reloader market had the bejesus tested out of it to be sure every lot was accurately blended to produce extremely consistent ballistic results. And I am sure that every other powder manufacturer does the same, just as a matter of avoiding product liability lawsuits. Could AA2 be mislabeled as AA5? Well, anything is possible, but I'd say that's extremely unlikely. Also use of Magnum vs. standard primers makes not a whit of ballistic difference. Both produce identical average MV results with identical loads. I have tested that enough myself to guarantee that is an indisputable fact. Ditto use of small rifle vs. small pistol primers in handgun loads. I normally use small rifle primers only for all my .38 Special, .357, and 9X23 loads.
 
Last edited:
An Update......

Okay, I decided some detective work was necessary to rule out certain questions about my reloads, so I took 20 rounds out of three separate ammo cans of what I'd loaded, broke them down, and determined that NONE of them were overloaded, the most powder I got out of a round was 5.1 grains, most were less than that. I used an inertial bullet puller, which lets some of the powder jump out around the collet when the bullet is released, but it's generally pretty negligible, assuming you stop whacking the "hammer" when the bullet is pulled out.

I also calibrated my Chargemaster's scale before I began, it's always been dead-on,and I have no reason to suspect a problem there. I have a lot of check-weights of different sizes, and they all weighed what they should.

The bullets I used are from a local commercial caster, and don't appear to be any harder than normal, I still have several boxes on hand and my hardness tester tells me they're all about the same.

Some of the pulled rounds had magnum primers, some had standard primers, just like the ones I fired.

I also had a lengthy conversation with Engineer1911 at his behest, and while we talked about a lot of things, most of it was about reloading. He brought up a point I hadn't considered, that of the powder being stored in a warehouse somewhere for a long time before the "Pistol Powder Shortage of 2013" hit. I bought the powder in question in October of 2013, didn't use it until about six months ago, and of the five pounds I bought (when there was nothing else to be found) I still have most of one left. Having no AA#2 on hand to compare it with, I can't say it looks more like AA#2 or AA#5, but I do recall that when I photographed all the AA powders I had on hand several years ago, the only way I could tell most apart was by looking at the label next to them when I took the photos. AA#7 and #9 have smaller grains, but #2 and #5 look the same to me.

I use a lot of brass that's been fired numerous times, but sorting the older brass from the newer stuff would be impossible, I use what I have until the primer pockets loosen up or it splits. So some of the brass might be work hardened, but when I encounter a load where the bullet requires more force than normal to seat (like with military brass) I set it aside and put it in a different lot, usually to be shot in a stouter gun like my 686 or the GP-100, just in case there's an issue I don't want my 38's to be subjected to.

I know magnum primers can make pressures spike, but this is the ONLY time it's been so noticeable, and not all the hot loads had magnum primers, so I have to think it's a powder issue.

An earlier poster mentioned that he thought I might have AA#2 that was mis-labeled as #5, and thus far, that seems like the only thing that makes sense. That, or a very hot batch of AA#5, maybe one that was stored in a hot warehouse that altered the burn rate somehow. All the canisters were sealed, but far be it from me to say it's not possible.

It seems a call to Western Powders would be in order, the lot number should tell us how old the powder actually is, I suspect it's more than a couple years old, regardless of how long ago I bought it.

If anyone has any thoughts on what I may be overlooking, feel free to chime in, I'm all ears. If it was a few rounds here and there I'd chalk it up to discrepancies in the brass, but it's ALL of them, and I'm a bit concerned. Having loaded at least a half-million rounds of pistol ammo without this kind of issue leaves me wondering what's going on here.
 
It would be nice if Western Powders had a sample of the marked A#5 to test. But, I don't know how an individual could get it to them.
I would think they would want to know if there was a miss marked lot on the market. However, with the kind of difference under discussion, I would think that they would already know about it. It doesn't sound subtile.
If you could get a small amount of a different sample of A#5, enough for 10 rounds, it would be interesting to duplicate the loads, and test in your M686. If they seem like 38 SPL loads, then you could try them in the M64. This should eliminate the powder, or not, as a variable.
It does seem like you have already eliminated the variables, other than the powder.

Best,
Rick
 
I have never noticed any changes in propellants due to age. I am still using, occasionally, powder I bought during the 1960s and 1970s, and there is nothing unusual about it. That doesn't rule out the possibility of some manufacturing problems, such as no stabilizer. I'd think contacting Western Powders might be the best approach, as I am certain that cases, bullets, and primers cannot be responsible.

I have read about overpressure problems experienced by others involving AA5, but I haven't experienced any myself. I still use AA5 for .38 Special (previously mentioned), and at one time was using it for very hot 9X23mm loads. It is perfect for loading the 9X23 due to its very high bulk density, and I was pushing 124 grain FMJ bullets at MVs close to 1500 ft/sec. I fired thousands of those rounds without problem.
 
Last edited:
lot numbers

Here's another suggestion for the op besides calling Western powders.

Post the lot number of the can of AA #5.

Then the reloaders on board can check to see if they have a can from the same lot.

I'll start with the one I have on hand.

AA #5 2010 0508122104

There has to be an answer to why the loads are hot.

BLM
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you sent a sample of your powder back to Western Powders if they would/could analyze, some how test or examine it to see what's going on ? This is getting to be an interesting mystery story!
Gary
 
Wow...Those pictures look nothing alike......

The old #5 and the new #5 look entirely different. Had they been Alliant or Hodgdon powders, I've never seen any real variation but Accurate powders are new to me and somebody mentioned that they have had variances in the past. With those variables being eliminated and a noticeable overload the powder is starting to sound like the culprit. Checking against the other lots is a good idea but I've give the lot number you have to Western and ask them why it's so hot and that you've checked everything and eliminated variables. They'll probably tell you there's something wrong with your primers or something, but maybe they could give some good information.

In the meantime, you know the powder goes bang so I'd use it and lower the charge some. Maybe they will give you a free pound. Yeah right.:D:D:D
 
Here's another suggestion for the op besides calling Western powders.

Post the lot number of the can of AA #5.

Then the reloaders on board can check to see if they have a can from the same lot.

I'll start with the one I have on hand.

AA #5 2010 0508122104

There has to be an answer to why the loads are hot.

BLM

Thanks to Papajohn428 for doing some more detective work. I have AA No. 5 lot # 0307142109 that shoots great.

Getting your existing loads chono'd sounds like another good idea.
 
different

The old #5 and the new #5 look entirely different. Had they been Alliant or Hodgdon powders, I've never seen any real variation but Accurate powders are new to me and somebody mentioned that they have had variances in the past. With those variables being eliminated and a noticeable overload the powder is starting to sound like the culprit. Checking against the other lots is a good idea but I've give the lot number you have to Western and ask them why it's so hot and that you've checked everything and eliminated variables. They'll probably tell you there's something wrong with your primers or something, but maybe they could give some good information.

In the meantime, you know the powder goes bang so I'd use it and lower the charge some. Maybe they will give you a free pound. Yeah right.:D:D:D

I noticed that too. It's kind of scary to think if we ran across an old batch.

I'd be swearing someone dumped Unique into the container.

Someday, someone is going to do this and ask is this powder Ok.

We'll say no, that's Unique. AA powders are small flattened balls and we would be wrong.

Great to learn that the old lots are different from the new.

BLM
 
Back
Top